On Jun 7, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>>> The answer is that it is desirable for both documents to be authoritative or for *only* the author view to be authoritative. This has already been discussed. This was a constraint that the TAG placed on continuance of the browser-centric spec. If you want to object to the full HTML5 spec being authoritative, feel free to do so.
>>
>> Correction, this was not a constraint, but a request from the TAG, which at least at the time the HTML WG chose to grant. As far as I know, the TAG has no authority to override the decisions of Working Groups and therefore cannot impose a "constraint".
>
> It is a constraint -- as in, the document will not progress without satisfying that constraint. The TAG carries the full power of the Director. Consider it a formal objection (made by me) that presumably will be upheld by the Director at some point in the future, unless you can change the TAG's opinion.
>
> Again, we had this discussion already. The WG agreed to it as a compromise instead of publishing separate specs for the data format and browser behavior. Why on earth you would want to reopen that can is beyond my understanding, particularly since calling both specs authoritative has no impact whatsoever on the larger spec.
The Director carries the full power of the Director. If in time you choose to make a Formal Objection to anything, or anyone else does, then it will be given due consideration and will in due course make its way to the Director. However, to be clear, nowhere does the W3C Process give the TAG qua TAG any authority to place "constraints" on Working Groups.
Here is the relevant part of the W3C Process document: <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#TAG>.
You are free to make whatever technical arguments you wish about this issue, but I wanted to make sure everyone has correct understanding of the W3C Process as it applies here.
Regards,
Maciej